Methodology

This research study had two primary purposes. The first was to assess the types of
gambling behavior in which college student athletes engage. The second was to determine
the rates at which student athletes participate in these activities and, more
specifically, to see if patterns of participation differed by gender. A self-administered,
written questionnaire was used to gather responses to closed-ended questions. Approval to
use human subjects for this investigation was obtained from the University of Michigan
Institutional Review Board. The specific research methods are described in the following
sections.

Setting for the Study Selection of participants, which were student athletes from
football, and men's and women's basketball teams, was as follows:

All NCAA Division I-A football playing schools were included in the study.

After identifying 112 Division I-A institutions, the institution's football and
basketball conference was reviewed with the goal of including all of the members of the
basketball conference in the population. For example, Temple University competes in
football in the Big East and in the Atlantic 10 in basketball. Therefore every school from
the Atlantic-10 was included in the study.

If an institution was included in the sample because one of the institution's conference
members plays Division I-A football, their football program (if one exists) was included
in the sample. For example, Villanova University was included in the study because their
basketball program competes in the Big East. Their football athletes, even though they
compete at the I-AA level, were also included in the sample of football athletes. However,
Villanova's football conference was not sampled. Institutions from the Ohio Valley
Conference and Big Sky Conference were added to round out the sample.

Data Collection Procedures

Participants' names and addresses were obtained from team rosters and information
available through various public sources (e.g., institutional directories, World Wide Web
sites, and public phone records). The randomization process resulted in approximately 10%
of each institution's football team (assuming approximate roster sizes of 105
participants) and 27% of each institution's men's and women's basketball team (assuming
approximate roster sizes of 15 participants) being included in the sample.

Via regular mail, each participant received a cover letter that described the purpose
of the study, explained the confidentiality protections used, and offered information on
how to contact the researchers with any questions. In addition, the packet included a
self-administered questionnaire, pencil, and a stamped reply envelope addressed to the
investigators. No payment or compensation was provided to respondents since such payments
would have violated the NCAA's rules against providing extra benefits to student athletes.

It is important to note that neither the survey, nor the return envelopes, were coded
in any manner. The omission of any type of identifying marks was done in order to increase
the confidence of the respondents that the research was truly anonymous. Because the
surveys were not coded, there was no possibility of sending a second instrument to those
individuals who may not have responded to the first query.

Survey Instrument

The questionnaire was developed using concepts and items taken from three previously
published studies "The Extent and Sources of NCAA Rules Violations" (Cullen and
Latessa, 1996), "The South Oaks Gambling Screen" (Lesieur and Blume, 1987), and
"A Survey of American Gambling Attitudes and Behavior" (Kallick, Suits, Dielman,
and Hybels, 1979). The current survey instrument incorporated two questions from Cullen
and Latessa's research. The majority of our survey instrument was adapted for a student
athlete population from The South Oaks Gambling Screen with most of the response items
being retained. However, some items that screen for problem and pathological gambling were
not included in the final instrument. Finally, Kallick, et al was used to refine the
survey instrument as it pertained to a student athlete population and to create more
specificity in identifying potential types of gambling behavior. The questionnaire was
pilot-tested four times prior to the national distribution to assure an easily understood
survey instrument.

The questionnaire was divided into four sections: (I) general gambling activities; (II)
sports related gambling with friends; (III) gambling with bookmakers and other organized
gambling activities; and (IV) demographic and other general information about the
respondent. Each of these sections will be described in turn.

Section I began with a series of questions about specific gambling behaviors and asked
respondents to indicate if they engaged in the behavior since attending college and the
number of times in the last 12 months. Among the gambling behaviors queried in this
section were playing cards for money, betting on animals or sports, and gambling in
casinos. Additional questions probed the amount of money gambled since attending college;
borrowing money; missing classes, practices, or competitions due to gambling; and reasons
for gambling.

Sections II and III addressed issues specifically related to sports gambling. Section
II was designed to measure the number of times and amount wagered on bets against friends
on specific sports and the reasons for it. Section III addressed specific sports betting,
typical bets, and reasons for betting with bookmakers. Respondents were also asked if they
ever bet on a game in which they participated, received money for not playing well, or
provided inside information about a game to aid bookmakers.

Section IV included standard questions about age, sex, race, family income, and year in
school. Other questions sought information about athletic eligibility, living situation,
grade point average, sport(s) played, and whether or not the respondent received an
athletic scholarship. Respondents were also asked to assess their role on their team.

Data Preparation and Analysis

Careful review of all of the data to correct any data entry errors and remove any
partially completed survey information was conducted prior to the data analysis. The
primary purpose of this research was to provide descriptive information regarding student
athlete gambling. Where appropriate, ANOVA was used to determine significant differences
between male and female student athlete responses. The findings are presented below.